Head Coverings Predated Christianity

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I would again say my deepest thanks to Costeon, for he provided me great, great inspiration from that thread. He stood up for truth though AGAINST the standard Apostolic line. God bless you!

Don, sniveling all over this forum from thread to thread crying that I said he isn't Apostolic? Here's your proof boys and girls. Good God from Zion.

[donfriesen1]

"But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God", Paul says in 1Co11. And to which OT verse would Paul be referencing for this thought? There are no similar verses in the OT to reference. Paul makes this up. Or, if it is offensive to you to read this because it might be understood to mean that Paul uses his imagination to fabricate a thought out of thin air, then instead: Paul comes up with these new thoughts. They are new, when seen that no other Bible writer has written a similar sentence.

He bases them on what he has seen on the OT. He tells us where. The Beginning. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. When we turn to the Beginning verses we see: And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” and also: And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. [Interestingly, the word 'rib' does not appear in the Hebrew]. Nothing in Ge2 talks about GOOA, God's Order of Authority. Where then does Paul get the idea from, for his v3 thoughts? It was not because he had seen a statement or a command of God asking for it. Paul reads and makes a deduction from the facts, but not from words God spoke indicating the subject, because he hadn't spoken about GOOA. Paul thinks up this doctrine. It is a new doctrine, never seen before like he now pens it. He teaches it as irrefutable, though God had not commanded any such thing. The logic Paul uses is irrefutable as truth.

As such it is man-made, or if we want to speculate, it was inspired by the Spirit. We have no evidence he got the thought from the Spirit. It may well be that Paul has used the mind which God gave him to use and makes a conclusion, from reading what is seen in God's Word. It may well be that it is hard to tell if a thought is Spirit-inspired or just coming out of God-given reasoning abilities. How can the difference be known?

Does God command as 'sinful if not followed', that which comes out of Man's thoughts? If sin is the transgression of the Law, then usually there is a record of the command. Has God commanded the keeping of respect to GOOA? No.

Has God commanded another thing seen in the Beginning - free will? Where in the Beginning is a free will statement made by God, such as is believed by Christians to be a fundamental concept in God's dealings with Man. As much as free will is not commanded nor known by a statement from God indicating it, neither is GOOA commanded nor known by a statement from God indicating it , though both are great concepts most Christians would defend as fundamental. Something may not be sin if not commanded.

Paul then talks about a symbol: For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Symbols are not the real but representative of the real. In this case, the symbol represents the real - respect for GOOA. Thus, Paul teaches two things which are separate, though related. 1) GOOA. 2) the symbol on the head. #2 does not exist without #1. #2 is a by-product of #1. Saying this does not yet say what this head symbol is.

Where in the Beginning are there statements or commands of God showing the symbol which Eve should have on her head, to show respect for God/Adam? They are not there. There are also no OT commands indicating a symbol. But it is inconceivable that Eve is not expected to show respect by GOOA, because the principles asking for respect for GOOA exist without command, even existing outside of Covenant she was not yet in. It should be said she was expected to show respect to GOOA as a timeless principle, right? Of course. And the same way Eve is expected to, so all those of OT times are expected to but doing so without a command, because none exists. But yet in the OT, no symbol is indicated by the one who some say demands/commands the keeping of a symbol.

If #1 exists only as a doctrine deduced from reading the OT, what then of that which is the child of #1. If #1 has not been commanded by God as sin if not heeded, in the only Book Paul has before him, then how could #2 ever be seen as commanded or sinful, if not followed? What logic could show this as true? What other example can be shown for this concept? Does this exist?

Showing that God commanded A&E to keep GOOA, or showing God showing Eve the symbol to use to show respect for GOOA would greatly damage the iv. When these cannot be found because they don't exist, then another method of making this symbol appear must be found in that which is an irrefutable principle Paul would say all should believe in, though not OT commanded. This other way is explained in the iv, which see.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Cute meme, Dom. Keep em coming!

Dom is a walking encyclopedia of worldy and scriptural knowledge. He really is. His dedication to God in the past evinced a hunger for this knowledge and he gained it.

Yet Dom does not reach into the vast reservoir he has, to provide things to actually refute the theological points I've made in post 40 or in Post 33,34. His Apostolic sensibilities have been rattled to produce head shaking revulsion, but not enough to theologically disprove the many points made. Why not, Dom, when you are so full of knowledge? Why only a cute meme?

You've got it in you to do much better, but you don't do it. Why, Dom? I'm shaking my head and asking why?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom is a walking encyclopedia of worldy and scriptural knowledge. He really is. His dedication to God in the past evinced a hunger for this knowledge and he gained it.

More of your weird, passive aggressive pandering? Always true to your typical ecclesiastical narcissistic behavior. You see Don, I'm just pointing out the behavior, you are the one who so willingly supplies the material. This is what you must believe a "right living man" to be?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Yet Dom does not reach into the vast reservoir he has, to provide things to actually refute the theological points I've made in post 40 or in Post 33,34.

Prove that I haven't. You see Don, since you can't disprove what I have already offered you, you resort to this tactic. You seem to think that no one else can go read through all the posts? In all the threads? Which you and I have held discussions? Where they would clearly see I have answered you in full. Yet, this must be how you behave in real time in face to face confrontations. You are a typical religious glamor boy who can't deal with being wrong, especially since you live in an ecclesiastical delusion where you believe that Jesus has given you, and you alone, these revelations on human instinct/intuition guided theology. Like all religious carnal men you lie your face off to win a argument. Because after all you are all that matters since you are God's chosen messenger. The messenger of your restorative teaching for the Apostolic movement. When in reality all you are is some frustrated old individual who feels rejected for not being given the pulpit so you can nip the church family in the bud. Being rejected by keen eyed leadership, and an organization.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

His Apostolic sensibilities have been rattled to produce head shaking revulsion, but not enough to theologically disprove the many points made. Why not, Dom, when you are so full of knowledge? Why only a cute meme?

Don, you aren't my first rodeo, I've dealt with religious pterodactyls like you before. Men (and women) who refuse to be honest. Who view themselves to be some light unto the blind. A sword fit for the hand of the Almighty. All just wanting a pulpit and a platform. Where they can carve the sheep up into lamb cutlets. Or drain their bank accounts. I don't see you as the kind to drain the accounts of the saints monetarily. You are more of the type who thinks he is a chain breaker, but in reality a ditch director. You are blind, (and dishonest) so therefore you send people to hell. I don't believe you plan on that, but teaching people that the Apostle Paul was just a carnal guy? A carnal guy who was just throwing out suggestions for people to figure it out with their own carnal instinct? All while the Bible condemns such a practice? Just means you are as blind as a bat. You also don't have the Holy Ghost, in any shape or form. If you did, you rejected it long long ago. No one is going to tell you how the cow ate the cabbage. You may be mo mo ma shonda from start to stop. But buddy boy you just ain't got it. No one with the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues would accept a carnal Apostle Paul.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

You've got it in you to do much better, but you don't do it.

Creepy weird, passive aggressive pandering.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Why, Dom? I'm shaking my head and asking why?

Don, prove I haven't answered you. Simple enough. yet, with all the threads and all the posts. You haven't proved me wrong. You are nothing more than a frustrated dishonest silly man. but, please show me exactly with all I have POSTED where I am incorrect?

[votivesoul]

Costeon,

One other thing that I think is important to note vis a vis veiling the hair in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, such as I have defined in my previous posts, is:

What is the Biblical definition of naked(ness)?

We know of course of the famous passage in Genesis, about Adam and Eve both being naked in the Garden, yet being so without the shame or stigma of public nudity.

Genesis 2:25 (ESV),

25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Naked: עֲרוּמִּ֔ים (ărūmmîm), from עָרוֹם (arom): nude, either partially or fully, i.e. naked.

See: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6174.htm

Nothing particularly special or revelatory about the Hebrew text. But note, it's rather circular. Crossing between English to Hebrew simply tells us only this:

Naked = Naked

We still don't have a Biblical definition. Yes, we have our own understanding of what it means, but our own understanding is rather subjective in nature and scope, partly based on cultural values and laws, and the various moral responses to both.

So, an infant at her mother's breast, bereft of all clothing, nursing in the comfort of her parent's bed, privately at home, is, definitionally naked, but no one responds negatively to such a phenomena. A husband and wife, fully disrobed, in the act of procreatively making that baby, is fully understood and appreciated as a moral reality, provided it takes place behind closed doors, i.e. in private.

Same with showering or bathing, or undergoing certain surgeries, etc. No one bats an eye at these things. The issues arise when cultural mores and taboos are transgressed. But these issues depend greatly upon time and place. Many tribal women around the world go topless, while the men may only wear a loincloth covering their genitalia, while leaving the rest of their body available for seeing. This is deemed acceptable as a cultural practice. Photos, videos, documentaries, etc. abound, are shown regularly in schools, or in magazines like National Geographic, or etc., and we don't look away in shock or disgust. It seems perfectly normal.

But if a young woman goes to the beach in a thong bikini, our Christian ethic is to look away and be ashamed for her. Taking the example from earlier, some cannot stand the idea of a woman breastfeeding in public without a screen or cover of some sort. Yet, there are all kinds of entertainment options from the mildly perverse, to the pornographically obscene, yet our culture and laws tolerate all this. Why, you cannot even walk through Walmart without going past the underwear section to see photos of women in their bras and panties, or men in their jockeys. It's all normative. We don't raise an alarm or react poorly. We just go about shopping as if nothing is amiss. Yet, we'd recoil if we saw a woman parading herself in Walmart dressed only in her skivvies.

So, what gives? The issue is, we don't have a Biblical definition of nakedness, and we've allowed, cross-culturally, people to define it for themselves in a somewhat admittedly organic, but no less willy-nilly fashion, no pun intended. One people group's nudity is another people group's standard flair.

This is obvious and easy to understand how this happens, but what if? What if the whole world had a standardized definition of nakedness, and what if that standardized definition of nakedness was entirely based on the Bible? What then?

What would it be? We might again start with Adam and Eve.

Genesis 3:7 (ESV),

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

What is a loincloth? We might think of it as a piece of fabric or some other material designed to cover a person's external genitalia, male or female. But if this is so, what about the buttocks, or the breasts of a woman?

Surely, we as good, God-fearing Christians wouldn't go out into the world showing off our rear assets, or allow our wives or daughters, sisters or mothers, to go about with their breasts exposed to the world?

But loincloth might suggest that Adam and Eve's understanding of their own nakedness meant only that they should cover their lower parts, i.e. their external genitilia. That was their INSTINCT (paying attention, Don?).

And yet, it wasn't good enough for God. How do we know? Because God himself made Adam and Eve some clothes made from animal skins:

Genesis 3:21 (ESV),

21 And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

Garments: כָּתְנ֥וֹת (kāṯənōwṯ), from כְּתֹנֶת (kethoneth): a tunic, coat, or robe...denotes a long, shirt–like garment that served as the basic article of clothing for both men and women in ancient Israel. It was normally woven from wool or linen, extending to the knees or ankles, with or without sleeves.

See: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3801.htm

Now, we're getting somewhere. Man's instinct was to cover only his external genitalia. But God's design was to cover Adam and Eve from head to knee or possibly, even to toe.

Furthermore, as it pertains to how a woman should be dressed or covered, Biblically speaking, we still have to deal with Paul's teaching on hair and veils.

Again, I refer to Isaiah 47:1-3 (ESV),

1 Come down and sit in the dust,
O virgin daughter of Babylon;
sit on the ground without a throne,
O daughter of the Chaldeans!
For you shall no more be called
tender and delicate.
2 Take the millstones and grind flour,
put off your veil,
strip off your robe, uncover your legs,
pass through the rivers.
3 Your nakedness shall be uncovered,
and your disgrace shall be seen.
I will take vengeance,
and I will spare no one.

This passage of Isaiah, along with most of the words of the prophets, along with the Psalms, many of the Proverbs, and other areas of the OT, are cast as Hebrew poetry, which works along the lines of parallelism.

This link will give a very good overview and introduction to how Biblical Hebrew poetry works:

I also recommend reading Robert Alter's The Art of Biblical Poetry as Alter is probably the leading and foremost scholar on the subject. You can read it online for free here.

With this understanding in tow, we can now begin to interpret Isaiah 47:1-3 properly.

Verse 1 has these parallels: virgin daughter of Babylon with daughter of the Chaldeans, and sit down in the dust with sit on the ground without a throne.

Essentially, Biblical Hebrew poetry often restates and recasts the immediately preceding concepts, using close but still different language. So, Isaiah trades virgin daughter of Babylon for daughter of the Chaldeans, and dust for ground.

Understanding this is key to the proper interpretation of the next two verses.

Look at the following:

1.) Put off your veil
2.) Strip off you robe
3.) Uncover your legs
4.) Your nakedness shall be uncovered
5.) Your disgrace shall be seen

Understanding these concepts as restated parallels of one another, we can finally get to a Biblical definition, according to the inspired prophet:

A woman is considered naked, that is, her pudenda is seen when?

When her veil is removed, her robe is stripped off, and her legs are uncovered.

Prophetically, when a woman has her veil removed, i.e. the cloth or garment designed to cover her hair, she is considered naked.

This the Biblical definition. Not a willy-nilly, culturally and geographicaly dependent definition, but an inspired and God-breathed definition in the Holy Scriptures. A man and woman in public should be covered by the equivalent of a kethoneth , and in addition, a woman should have her head veiled by a covering. Not because of any instinct or intuition (still paying attention, Don?) because Adam and Eve have shown us human instinct and intuition doesn't suffice. God has a better plan, one that suits His will and desire for humanity.

This includes a veil over a woman's hair, because her hair is given to her as a περιβολαίου (peribolaion), i.e. a testicle, as part of a Biblically defined understanding of a man's external genitalia, which must be covered when she prays or prophesies, lest she do what?

Dishonors her head, i.e. her husband. Now, note the preposition "for". It is the Greek word ἀντί (anti), as in antichrist (See, e.g. 1 John 2:18). It denotes the idea of in the stead of, a replacement for, opposed to/opposite of.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/473.htm

So, a woman, instead of being given a testicle, in the place of part of a man's external genitalia, as opposed to/opposite of, she is given long hair, which must then be veiled when she prays or prophesies, lest she bring shame and reproach upon her husband, just as much as a husband would bring shame or reproach upon his wife if he attempted to pray or prophesy with his testicles out on display.

This definition, I believe, we can all agree with. Praying or prophesying in the nude is wholly inappropriate. Paul considers a woman without a veil as naked before God, the angels, her husband, and the congregation of the saints. This is why veiling is the customary practice, the tradition he insists upon, and why he wrote that if anyone wanted to argue, too bad, this is the way it is in all the churches of God.

Is there a Torah command that mandates this? No, but there doesn't need to be one.

Acts 1:2 (ESV),

2 ...[Jesus] had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

Paul was a chosen Apostle. Christ, through the Holy Spirit, issued commands to Paul. Paul wrote them down for us, whether those commands were based in the Torah or not. 1 Corinthians is especially full of imperative statements made by Paul that he describes as commands. A key text is 1 Corinthians 14:37:

If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.

Paul's teaching on the charismata of the Spirit is authoritative, i.e. it comes directly from the Lord Jesus. Anyone who would claim the gift of prophecy, or to be spiritual needs must recognize this reality. And yet, Paul has not based his teachings on any OT passage, apart from a reference to Isaiah 28:11 in 1 Corinthians 14:20. Otherwise the entirety of his teachings, which he stipulates are commands from the Lord Jesus, are based in his revelation from Christ as per Acts 1:2. Therefore, Paul can issue binding statements upon the church without having to resort to the Tanakh, i.e. the Torah, the Nevi'im, or the Ketuvim.

(Are you paying attention, Don?)

[donfriesen1]

It's time to awaken, Apostolics. It's time to accept the arguments of the iv as truth.

When the arguments the iv puts forth can't be refuted, then it is because it is Truth with a capital T. Efforts to defeat a view which is truth cannot be successful using truth. Truth only supports truth, never contradicting it. And the reason the proponents of the vv can't defeat the iv is because it is truth, which can't be defeated using something that isn't truth. This is why iv opponents focus on commenting on peripherals instead of the main body.

What is seen in the iv is the presentation of scripture and reasoning based on the scripture. The reason the main points of it can't be shown wrong is because they come from the Word of God.

Paul reads the Word and makes conclusions based on it. He reads in the Beginning and makes a conclusion based on it, but not on words God speaks or commands. The method Paul uses is based on the powers of deductive reasoning.

It leads him to believe that GOoA, God's Order of Authority, is real and truth. But this had not come to him by reading a command. If God does not command that which comes out of his Word, ie: GOoA, then that which only exists because GOoA exists would also not be commanded. This refers to the head symbol. The need for a head symbol would not exist if GOoA did not exist. Thus, the head symbol, which gives recognition to the compliance to GOoA, is also not commanded.

Yet, those who believe in the vv or the ulv in their respective views, say God commands the symbol for all to obey. This is contrary to what Paul says is the source for his thoughts: the Beginning. It is contrary to what is seen in the Beginning to say head-symbols are commanded. There is no such command there.

Paul would not say the head symbol is commanded, if he had not seen God commanding it in the Beginning.

First things first. The Beginning is among the firsts, as far as earth is concerned. Anything coming after what came first must agree with the first, or it is seen contradicting the first-seen truth. The truth derived from 1Co11 must not contradict the truth of the Beginning. 1Co11 must be interpreted in the light of, keeping in mind, the light which the Beginning gave.

If conclusions coming out of 1Co11 contradict conclusions from the Beginning, then they must be adjusted to agree with that which came first. If not, then God is seen to contradict himself. God did not show falsehood in the Beginning. Things said to be of God in 1Co11 must not contradict what he shows at the first. God had not commanded either GOoA or the head symbol in the Beginning. Conclusions of 1Co11 must not contradict the first conclusions, to say that God commands either.

If God had not commanded either GOoA or head symbols in the Beginning, nor anywhere else in the OT, then the source for the compliance to them comes from something else.

God had not commanded A&E to love him. God expected them to do so for reasons other than commands. Not everything God expects from Man is commanded. This is by God's will by design. God had not commanded Abraham to tithe. Abraham tithes in compliance to another motivation, perhaps love. God-given reasoning power is the motivator to love God and tithe, not commands.

This springs out of the image of God given to Man. It motivates from within, but not by law. As in: The Lord did not have to go to the Cross. There was no Law which commanded him to be gracious. He reasoned within himself as to whether or not to do so.

The source for the expectation that a head symbol be shown to respect GOoA comes by way of the same inner motivator. That God did not command head symbols in the first 4000 yrs of Man's history testifies this conclusion is correct. The iv agrees with this expectation, by saying the source of the need to display a head symbol is within the God-given nature he gave Man. This is sometimes called an instinct.

If the facts and conclusions of this post can be shown faulty, then great damage will be done to the foundations of the iv.

[Amanah]

Can I just say the following post by Votivesoul is a master class!



Thread: Head Coverings Predated ChristianityView Single Post
#45 Report Post
Old Today, 03:28 PM
votivesoul's Avatar
votivesoul votivesoul is offline
Administrator



Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: WI
Posts: 5,537
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
Costeon,

One other thing that I think is important to note vis a vis veiling the hair in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, such as I have defined in my previous posts, is:

What is the Biblical definition of naked(ness)?

We know of course of the famous passage in Genesis, about Adam and Eve both being naked in the Garden, yet being so without the shame or stigma of public nudity.

Genesis 2:25 (ESV),

Quote:
25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
Naked: עֲרוּמִּ֔ים (ărūmmîm), from עָרוֹם (arom): nude, either partially or fully, i.e. naked.

See: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6174.htm

Nothing particularly special or revelatory about the Hebrew text. But note, it's rather circular. Crossing between English to Hebrew simply tells us only this:

Naked = Naked

We still don't have a Biblical definition. Yes, we have our own understanding of what it means, but our own understanding is rather subjective in nature and scope, partly based on cultural values and laws, and the various moral responses to both.

So, an infant at her mother's breast, bereft of all clothing, nursing in the comfort of her parent's bed, privately at home, is, definitionally naked, but no one responds negatively to such a phenomena. A husband and wife, fully disrobed, in the act of procreatively making that baby, is fully understood and appreciated as a moral reality, provided it takes place behind closed doors, i.e. in private.

Same with showering or bathing, or undergoing certain surgeries, etc. No one bats an eye at these things. The issues arise when cultural mores and taboos are transgressed. But these issues depend greatly upon time and place. Many tribal women around the world go topless, while the men may only wear a loincloth covering their genitalia, while leaving the rest of their body available for seeing. This is deemed acceptable as a cultural practice. Photos, videos, documentaries, etc. abound, are shown regularly in schools, or in magazines like National Geographic, or etc., and we don't look away in shock or disgust. It seems perfectly normal.

But if a young woman goes to the beach in a thong bikini, our Christian ethic is to look away and be ashamed for her. Taking the example from earlier, some cannot stand the idea of a woman breastfeeding in public without a screen or cover of some sort. Yet, there are all kinds of entertainment options from the mildly perverse, to the pornographically obscene, yet our culture and laws tolerate all this. Why, you cannot even walk through Walmart without going past the underwear section to see photos of women in their bras and panties, or men in their jockeys. It's all normative. We don't raise an alarm or react poorly. We just go about shopping as if nothing is amiss. Yet, we'd recoil if we saw a woman parading herself in Walmart dressed only in her skivvies.

So, what gives? The issue is, we don't have a Biblical definition of nakedness, and we've allowed, cross-culturally, people to define it for themselves in a somewhat admittedly organic, but no less willy-nilly fashion, no pun intended. One people group's nudity is another people group's standard flair.

This is obvious and easy to understand how this happens, but what if? What if the whole world had a standardized definition of nakedness, and what if that standardized definition of nakedness was entirely based on the Bible? What then?

What would it be? We might again start with Adam and Eve.

Genesis 3:7 (ESV),

Quote:
Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
What is a loincloth? We might think of it as a piece of fabric or some other material designed to cover a person's external genitalia, male or female. But if this is so, what about the buttocks, or the breasts of a woman?

Surely, we as good, God-fearing Christians wouldn't go out into the world showing off our rear assets, or allow our wives or daughters, sisters or mothers, to go about with their breasts exposed to the world?

But loincloth might suggest that Adam and Eve's understanding of their own nakedness meant only that they should cover their lower parts, i.e. their external genitilia. That was their INSTINCT (paying attention, Don?).

And yet, it wasn't good enough for God. How do we know? Because God himself made Adam and Eve some clothes made from animal skins:

Genesis 3:21 (ESV),

Quote:
21 And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.
Garments: כָּתְנ֥וֹת (kāṯənōwṯ), from כְּתֹנֶת (kethoneth): a tunic, coat, or robe...denotes a long, shirt–like garment that served as the basic article of clothing for both men and women in ancient Israel. It was normally woven from wool or linen, extending to the knees or ankles, with or without sleeves.

See: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3801.htm

Now, we're getting somewhere. Man's instinct was to cover only his external genitalia. But God's design was to cover Adam and Eve from head to knee or possibly, even to toe.

Furthermore, as it pertains to how a woman should be dressed or covered, Biblically speaking, we still have to deal with Paul's teaching on hair and veils.

Again, I refer to Isaiah 47:1-3 (ESV),

Quote:
1 Come down and sit in the dust,
O virgin daughter of Babylon;
sit on the ground without a throne,
O daughter of the Chaldeans!
For you shall no more be called
tender and delicate.
2 Take the millstones and grind flour,
put off your veil,
strip off your robe, uncover your legs,
pass through the rivers.
3 Your nakedness shall be uncovered,
and your disgrace shall be seen.
I will take vengeance,
and I will spare no one.
This passage of Isaiah, along with most of the words of the prophets, along with the Psalms, many of the Proverbs, and other areas of the OT, are cast as Hebrew poetry, which works along the lines of parallelism.

This link will give a very good overview and introduction to how Biblical Hebrew poetry works:

I also recommend reading Robert Alter's The Art of Biblical Poetry as Alter is probably the leading and foremost scholar on the subject. You can read it online for free here.

With this understanding in tow, we can now begin to interpret Isaiah 47:1-3 properly.

Verse 1 has these parallels: virgin daughter of Babylon with daughter of the Chaldeans, and sit down in the dust with sit on the ground without a throne.

Essentially, Biblical Hebrew poetry often restates and recasts the immediately preceding concepts, using close but still different language. So, Isaiah trades virgin daughter of Babylon for daughter of the Chaldeans, and dust for ground.

Understanding this is key to the proper interpretation of the next two verses.

Look at the following:

1.) Put off your veil
2.) Strip off you robe
3.) Uncover your legs
4.) Your nakedness shall be uncovered
5.) Your disgrace shall be seen

Understanding these concepts as restated parallels of one another, we can finally get to a Biblical definition, according to the inspired prophet:

A woman is considered naked, that is, her pudenda is seen when?

When her veil is removed, her robe is stripped off, and her legs are uncovered.

Prophetically, when a woman has her veil removed, i.e. the cloth or garment designed to cover her hair, she is considered naked.

This the Biblical definition. Not a willy-nilly, culturally and geographicaly dependent definition, but an inspired and God-breathed definition in the Holy Scriptures. A man and woman in public should be covered by the equivalent of a kethoneth , and in addition, a woman should have her head veiled by a covering. Not because of any instinct or intuition (still paying attention, Don?) because Adam and Eve have shown us human instinct and intuition doesn't suffice. God has a better plan, one that suits His will and desire for humanity.

This includes a veil over a woman's hair, because her hair is given to her as a περιβολαίου (peribolaion), i.e. a testicle, as part of a Biblically defined understanding of a man's external genitalia, which must be covered when she prays or prophesies, lest she do what?

Dishonors her head, i.e. her husband. Now, note the preposition "for". It is the Greek word ἀντί (anti), as in antichrist (See, e.g. 1 John 2:18). It denotes the idea of in the stead of, a replacement for, opposed to/opposite of.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/473.htm

So, a woman, instead of being given a testicle, in the place of part of a man's external genitalia, as opposed to/opposite of, she is given long hair, which must then be veiled when she prays or prophesies, lest she bring shame and reproach upon her husband, just as much as a husband would bring shame or reproach upon his wife if he attempted to pray or prophesy with his testicles out on display.

This definition, I believe, we can all agree with. Praying or prophesying in the nude is wholly inappropriate. Paul considers a woman without a veil as naked before God, the angels, her husband, and the congregation of the saints. This is why veiling is the customary practice, the tradition he insists upon, and why he wrote that if anyone wanted to argue, too bad, this is the way it is in all the churches of God.

Is there a Torah command that mandates this? No, but there doesn't need to be one.

Acts 1:2 (ESV),

Quote:
2 ...[Jesus] had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.
Paul was a chosen Apostle. Christ, through the Holy Spirit, issued commands to Paul. Paul wrote them down for us, whether those commands were based in the Torah or not. 1 Corinthians is especially full of imperative statements made by Paul that he describes as commands. A key text is 1 Corinthians 14:37:

Quote:
If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.
Paul's teaching on the charismata of the Spirit is authoritative, i.e. it comes directly from the Lord Jesus. Anyone who would claim the gift of prophecy, or to be spiritual needs must recognize this reality. And yet, Paul has not based his teachings on any OT passage, apart from a reference to Isaiah 28:11 in 1 Corinthians 14:20. Otherwise the entirety of his teachings, which he stipulates are commands from the Lord Jesus, are based in his revelation from Christ as per Acts 1:2. Therefore, Paul can issue binding statements upon the church without having to resort to the Tanakh, i.e. the Torah, the Nevi'im, or the Ketuvim.

(Are you paying attention, Don?)
__________________
For anyone devoted to His fear:

http://votivesoul.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

It's time to awaken, Apostolics. It's time to accept the arguments of the iv as truth.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

When the arguments the iv puts forth can't be refuted,

The arguments crushed it! Your word serving position lies bleeding in your hands. You might get a chance to fly out to Chris Reed's church. They love baloney sandwiches, maybe you can get a word serving position there.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

then it is because it is Truth with a capital T.

No, it is BALONEY with a capital B-A-L-O-N-E-Y

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Efforts to defeat a view which is truth cannot be successful using truth.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Truth only supports truth, never contradicting it.

Well, then you need to get some Truth, because all you have is a teaching that contradicts the Bible. Hey, when are you going to show me where you found Lake of Fire in the Old Testament? How long do I have to wait for that? Oh, yeah, as long as I've been waiting to see you refute what I posted?
How's your snow shovel ministry going?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

And the reason the proponents of the vv can't defeat the iv is because it is truth,

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

which can't be defeated

Yeah sure

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

using something that isn't truth.

You have yet to accomplish that. What is this? More of your wishful thinking?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

This is why iv opponents focus on commenting on peripherals instead of the main body.

Which you never refuted anything we posted with book, chapter, and verse. But, you believe you don't have to, because Jesus showed it to you.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What is seen in the iv is the presentation of scripture and reasoning based on the scripture.

How many scriptures did you post to prove that God doesn't know how to relay information to His followers? How many scriptures did you post that proves Paul was evolving in his beliefs? How many scriptures did you prove that Paul was just preaching about a local custom in Corinth and that everyone can just figure it out by themselves? When did you prove with scripture that weak Christians are too always remain weak? You are just silly man.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The reason the main points of it can't be shown wrong is because they come from the Word of God.

Three verses and you believe you started a new movement? 45,001 different denominations now?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Paul reads the Word and makes conclusions based on it. He reads in the Beginning and makes a conclusion based on it, but not on words God speaks or commands. The method Paul uses is based on the powers of deductive reasoning.

In 1 Corinthians 7:40, the Apostle Paul writes that his judgements were based on inspiration of the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:21 emphatically states that "no prophecy ever originated from human initiative. Instead, it was given by the Holy Ghost as men spoke under God's direction."

Don, you are a lost potato.

You need the Holy Ghost, with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

It leads him to believe that GOoA, God's Order of Authority, is real and truth. But this had not come to him by reading a command. If God does not command that which comes out of his Word, ie: GOoA, then that which only exists because GOoA exists would also not be commanded. This refers to the head symbol. The need for a head symbol would not exist if GOoA did not exist. Thus, the head symbol, which gives recognition to the compliance to GOoA, is also not commanded.

Yet, those who believe in the vv or the ulv in their respective views, say God commands the symbol for all to obey. This is contrary to what Paul says is the source for his thoughts: the Beginning. It is contrary to what is seen in the Beginning to say head-symbols are commanded. There is no such command there.

Paul would not say the head symbol is commanded, if he had not seen God commanding it in the Beginning.

First things first. The Beginning is among the firsts, as far as earth is concerned. Anything coming after what came first must agree with the first, or it is seen contradicting the first-seen truth. The truth derived from 1Co11 must not contradict the truth of the Beginning. 1Co11 must be interpreted in the light of, keeping in mind, the light which the Beginning gave.

If conclusions coming out of 1Co11 contradict conclusions from the Beginning, then they must be adjusted to agree with that which came first. If not, then God is seen to contradict himself. God did not show falsehood in the Beginning. Things said to be of God in 1Co11 must not contradict what he shows at the first. God had not commanded either GOoA or the head symbol in the Beginning. Conclusions of 1Co11 must not contradict the first conclusions, to say that God commands either.

If God had not commanded either GOoA or head symbols in the Beginning, nor anywhere else in the OT, then the source for the compliance to them comes from something else.

God had not commanded A&E to love him. God expected them to do so for reasons other than commands. Not everything God expects from Man is commanded. This is by God's will by design. God had not commanded Abraham to tithe. Abraham tithes in compliance to another motivation, perhaps love. God-given reasoning power is the motivator to love God and tithe, not commands.

This springs out of the image of God given to Man. It motivates from within, but not by law. As in: The Lord did not have to go to the Cross. There was no Law which commanded him to be gracious. He reasoned within himself as to whether or not to do so.

The source for the expectation that a head symbol be shown to respect GOoA comes by way of the same inner motivator. That God did not command head symbols in the first 4000 yrs of Man's history testifies this conclusion is correct. The iv agrees with this expectation, by saying the source of the need to display a head symbol is within the God-given nature he gave Man. This is sometimes called an instinct.

If the facts and conclusions of this post can be shown faulty, then great damage will be done to the foundations of the iv.

Don, you have been shown incorrect from the very first time Esaias pointing out your error. You never wanted anyone to correct you. You came here to ram your nonsense down our throats. That's fine, I'm always willing to oblige. But, since you didn't come to break bread, but break arms, don't get flipped out when you get challenged. I'm serious, Don, if you had manna from heaven, I would sit down, and eat with you. I really mean that! But, nothing you offered is hot bread, just some old maggot infested meal.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The arguments crushed it! Your word serving position lies bleeding in your hands. You might get a chance to fly out to Chris Reed's church. They love baloney sandwiches, maybe you can get a word serving position there.




No, it is BALONEY with a capital B-A-L-O-N-E-Y








Well, then you need to get some Truth, because all you have is a teaching that contradicts the Bible. Hey, when are you going to show me where you found Lake of Fire in the Old Testament? How long do I have to wait for that? Oh, yeah, as long as I've been waiting to see you refute what I posted?
How's your snow shovel ministry going?













Yeah sure




You have yet to accomplish that. What is this? More of your wishful thinking?




Which you never refuted anything we posted with book, chapter, and verse. But, you believe you don't have to, because Jesus showed it to you.







How many scriptures did you post to prove that God doesn't know how to relay information to His followers? How many scriptures did you post that proves Paul was evolving in his beliefs? How many scriptures did you prove that Paul was just preaching about a local custom in Corinth and that everyone can just figure it out by themselves? When did you prove with scripture that weak Christians are too always remain weak? You are just silly man.




Three verses and you believe you started a new movement? 45,001 different denominations now?




In 1 Corinthians 7:40, the Apostle Paul writes that his judgements were based on inspiration of the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:21 emphatically states that "no prophecy ever originated from human initiative. Instead, it was given by the Holy Ghost as men spoke under God's direction."

Don, you are a lost potato.

You need the Holy Ghost, with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues.




Don, you have been shown incorrect from the very first time Esaias pointing out your error. You never wanted anyone to correct you. You came here to ram your nonsense down our throats. That's fine, I'm always willing to oblige. But, since you didn't come to break bread, but break arms, don't get flipped out when you get challenged. I'm serious, Don, if you had manna from heaven, I would sit down, and eat with you. I really mean that! But, nothing you offered is hot bread, just some old maggot infested meal.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

"But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God", Paul says in 1Co11. And to which OT verse would Paul be referencing for this thought? There are no similar verses in the OT to reference. Paul makes this up. Or, if it is offensive to you to read this because it might be understood to mean that Paul uses his imagination to fabricate a thought out of thin air, then instead: Paul comes up with these new thoughts. They are new, when seen that no other Bible writer has written a similar sentence.

Don, I have accused you of saying that "Paul made things up" I have pointed this out throughout at least two threads. Yet, here we are with you providing me with the evidence. Thank you. Yet, Paul isn't making things up, he isn't using human reasonings, he isn't coming up with "new" thoughts based on culture or emotion. Paul was passing down to the Corinthian church information which was taught in all the churches of God, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 1 Corinthians 11:16. As I mentioned in my above post, in 1 Corinthians 7:40, the Apostle Paul writes that his judgements were based on inspiration of the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:21 emphatically states that "no prophecy ever originated from human initiative. Instead, it was given by the Holy Ghost as men spoke under God's direction." As you have done so many times over, and over again, you refuse to see how the traditions of Jesus Christ and His apostles were passed down to the Apostolic churches. Through the divine inspiration of the Holy Ghost, through Jesus' holy apostles like the Apostle Paul.

Don, what you are actually attempting with your opinion, is saying that the Pauline epistles were just Paul's guess work. That the Apostle Paul was really just trying to figure things out on the fly. Gleaning from Old testament, mingled with Hellenistic Roman cultures during his time. You remove all inspiration of the Holy Ghost, your teaching totally rejects and contradicts 2 Peter 1:21 which teaches the exact opposite to your opinions.

I personally don't believe you ever had a real Holy Ghost experience a day in your life. If you were in a blowout Holy Ghost shouting service you may of thought everyone was just being emotional? Have you ever ran the pews? Ever shouted under the power of the Holy Ghost? Did you believe it was all learned behavior? Do you believe in speaking in other tongues?

The reason why I say these things, is because you totally fabricated an opinion which teaches that you can follow God through your own carnal will.
Which is an idea that the Bible opposes.

Romans 8:7